Atheism is Indeed A Civil Rights Issue

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"]

 Spoiler

In “Atheism Is Not a Civil Rights Issue” (FI, February-March), DJ Grothe and Austin Dacey deny that atheism is a civil rights issue. They reject the idea that nonbelievers should focus on electing other nonbelievers to political office. I disagree on both counts.

Is Atheism a Civil Rights Issue?

One test of whether a minority group’s struggle for equality is a civil rights issue is whether majority attitudes toward that minority reflect unreasonable prejudice or a desire to deny full legal rights to its members. By this standard, atheists’ efforts to achieve legal and social equality indeed constitute a civil rights movement. Consider that, in 1958, a Gallup poll revealed that 53 percent of American citizens would vote against a Black candidate for president on grounds of race alone. In a 1999 Gallup poll, that figure had declined to 4 percent.1 That same 1999 Gallup poll revealed that a larger percentage of American citizens, 49 percent, would vote against an atheist on grounds of atheism alone than would vote against someone for any other reason.2 Even though this is the lowest comparative percentage of people who said they would vote against someone just for being a nonbeliever, in absolute numbers, it is still a higher percentage than is applicable to any other historically disfavored group.

Given current attitudes, new laws that overtly discriminate against atheists would pass easily, and any such existing laws would eagerly be enforced—save only for the United States Supreme Court, which has held consistently since 1947 that no branch of government can favor believers over nonbelievers.3 Enlightened as this position may be, it has never enjoyed majority support. Quite to the contrary, each time the Supreme Court, indeed any court, has struck down government preference for religion over nonbelief, an overwhelming majority of the public has opposed the decision in question.

Ever since the famous Supreme Court rulings of 1962 and 1963 that ended teacher-led prayer and Bible readings in public schools, in poll after poll Americans have favored returning government sponsored prayer to public schools by a minimum margin of 69 percent to 27 percent.4 In many surveys, the percentage favoring restoration of school prayer exceeds 75 percent.5

In other words, an overwhelming majority of Americans rejects the offer of fairness that atheists and secular humanists have always proposed. We don’t want government to favor us over others; we just want government to be neutral, so that both believers and nonbelievers will be equal before the law. We want government to stay out of the God controversy, so that the official structure of society equally embraces both believers and nonbelievers. We want government to be silent on the question of God’s existence and on matters of worship. Even a moderate conservative like U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has endorsed this position, asserting that the First Amendment prohibits all branches of government from treating people differently based upon “the God or gods they worship or don’t worship.”6

In contrast, most Americans yearn for government to take sides in the dispute over whether God exists. And so, we atheists and humanists find ourselves dependent on a constitutional mandate of equality before the law, the immediate survival of which depends upon a dangerously narrow margin of just two votes on the Supreme Court. A shift of these two votes would establish a five-vote majority on the Court sufficient to abolish the present requirement of government neutrality between religion and nonbelief. So far, President Bush has succeeded in appointing judges to the lower federal courts who openly favor a Christian theological basis for our legal system. These judges, unfortunately reflecting attitudes held by most Americans, maintain that the Supreme Court has been wrong in its unbroken line of decisions that require government to treat belief and nonbelief equally.

Since the majority in our nation regards nonbelievers with disdain and craves an end to government neutrality between religion and nonbelief, the struggle of atheists in the United States is indeed a civil rights issue. But that’s not the worst of it.

Mainstream Americans don’t simply reject atheism. Far too many of them also revile atheists, secular humanists, and other unbelievers as persons. In reflecting upon my own narrow loss in my 2000 bid for a seat in the California legislature, I have written that nonbelievers are the most unjustly despised minority in the United States today..7

History and current events confirm how sharply nonbelievers are loathed. Consider the torrent of hatred today directed toward Michael Newdow, the courageous plaintiff in the effort to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance that public school children are expected to recite. Far from being unusual, the negative public response toward Newdow typifies the rage with which most Americans respond when anyone from our community demands that official government pronouncements be as equally inclusive of us as they are of everyone else.

Or consider a historical example. In February 1964, when the landmark Civil Rights Act was being debated in Congress, the House of Representatives passed a measure by a vote of 137 to 98 that explicitly excluded atheists from protection under the new law that would otherwise abolish employment discrimination.#8 Fortunately, the measure failed in the Senate. Still, just forty years ago, the same House of Representatives that declared it illegal to engage in employment discrimination against African Americans was willing to give employers free rein to go on discriminating against people who didn’t believe in God.

I submit that bigotry against a person just because that individual rejects unproven supernatural claims is every bit as destructive of the quest for a just and enlightened society as is bigotry against someone on grounds of race or ethnicity.

To the extent that a clear majority of Americans, let alone an overwhelming majority, wants government at all levels to officially favor religion over nonbelief—to the extent that more Americans still view atheism as a disqualifying characteristic in a political candidate than they do any other factor—I submit that we nonbelievers are in just as much danger of suffering open discrimination as is the gay community. Even though there have not yet been any notable physical attacks on atheists—just for being atheists—discrimination does not have to be accompanied by overt violence in order to pose a grave threat to a minority group’s struggle for full equality. Further, if President Bush succeeds in restructuring the Supreme Court so as to create a majority willing to nullify church/state separation, open discrimination against atheists and secular humanists may become the active and enforceable law of the land.

Accordingly, the efforts of atheists, secular humanists, and other nonbelievers to secure and preserve their equality before the law is every bit as much a civil rights struggle as is that of the gay rights movement.

Should Atheists Elect Their Own?

One of the most important advances members of any unjustly despised minority can make is to begin electing members of their own community to political office. Consider how pathetically contemporary politicians pander to religion—for example, when every United States senator gathered on the Capitol steps to support “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance after the initial Ninth Circuit finding favorable to Newdow was announced. Clearly our best protection against legislation hostile to nonbelievers would be to get some atheists elected to Congress and state legislatures.

In their article, Grothe and Dacey reproach what they portray as my stance that atheists should vote for an atheist candidate solely because of his or her atheism. My actual position is that, given the dearth of nonbelievers currently holding significant political office in the United States, when one of our colleagues in freethought makes a bid for office and has a significant chance of winning, we should try to give that candidate our support even if we do not agree with him or her on every issue. We nonbelievers can be a contentious lot, often withholding our backing from anyone with whom we disagree on even just one issue. As a practical matter, we will never find a candidate with whom we agree on everything. My suggestion, then, is for atheists and secular humanists to try to give a viable candidate from our own community greater leeway on topics not directly germane to the equal rights of nonbelievers and church-state separation. Each of us should try to support that candidate, unless he or she holds a position on some issue that violates one of our core individual beliefs.

The gay community, women, African Americans, and other minority groups have learned the importance of civil rights activism, and of electing their own to political office. Since the mood of the country is so antagonistic toward atheists, our own quest to secure and preserve equality before the law is clearly a civil rights issue. As such, just like any other unjustly despised minority, we must learn how to elect a number of our own to the halls of power.

Source

Thoughts :O?[/COLOR]

Well in Ethics someone was speaking about religion and our Professor brought up the stat that about 90% of American's claim to either be religious or believe in a god compared to about 40% in Europe~
He also pointed out that America is by a large margin among the most religious countries in the world.
....
With this in mind~ We would be hard pressed to elect an atheist leader based upon herm's atheism.

about 90% of American's claim to either be religious or believe in a god compared to about 40% in Europe~

Actually...that's not even close to being correct. For one, I think you may have meant the United Kingdom as opposed to Europe.
Even then, [URL="http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131"]only about 35% of the U.K. claim to be Atheist, while 21% claim uncertainty.
[/URL]

wow, that's pretty bad... good thing we don't have that much religious fanatism in brazil. I still haven't found someone trying to convert me or despising me for being atheist.

Nobody oppresses atheists in the US. They're very vocal about hating God, if there was oppression they would be much less eager to tell everybody how God sucks and doesn't exist.

I think the only place where you can be killed for that is the Middle East. But then, there you can be killed for converting to Christianity, too.

Did you read the article in the first post?

What it's saying is not that Atheists are being oppressed, but that they have a bad public image and as a result a hard time being elected into office.
More Americans would vote against an Atheist candidate for President than would reject a woman, an ethnic minority, a Jew, or a homosexual. Presumably, they would also not want an Atheist as an employee (or boss), teacher, or business associate.
Too many people think that if you have no God, you have no conscience, and are therefore much more evil than someone who believes in the "wrong" god.

This image is what needs to be changed, according to the author of the article.

More Americans would vote against an Atheist candidate for President than would reject a woman, an ethnic minority, a Jew, or a homosexual. Presumably, they would also not want an Atheist as an employee (or boss), teacher, or business associate.
Too many people think that if you have no God, you have no conscience, and are therefore much more evil than someone who believes in the "wrong" god.

Americans tend to prefer that you have a belief in someone in heaven. What religion you are is definitely an important issue. It's a major part of who you are as a candidate, and I would be uncomfortable with someone leading this nation that proclaimed that s/he believed that there is no God.

Though, it is true that atheists have morals. Anyone has their own set of beliefs and standards, regardless of who they believe (or don't believe) in.

Americans tend to prefer that you have a belief in someone in heaven. What religion you are is definitely an important issue. It's a major part of who you are as a candidate, and I would be uncomfortable with someone leading this nation that proclaimed that s/he believed that there is no God.

Though, it is true that atheists have morals. Anyone has their own set of beliefs and standards, regardless of who they believe (or don't believe) in.

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"]Why should that affect their ability to lead?

Why would that even matter?[/COLOR]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"]Why should that affect their ability to lead?

Why would that even matter?[/COLOR]

That is my exact question. Would you be uncomfortable because they don't believe in the heaven you do?

A person who believes and doesn't believe should not impact their leadership what-so-ever. People who believe otherwise are being overly superstitious, or hateful because they don't want their power over the American Presidency lost.

 Great quotes

Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies.

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own"

Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man.

Faith is believing something you know ain't true.

[The Bible is] a mass of fables and traditions, mere mythology.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, & the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.

The pioneers and missionaries of religion have been the real cause of more trouble and war than all other classes of mankind.

Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.

Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.

All religions have been made by men.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I tend to think that if God wanted us to believe in him, he'd exist.

I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment, to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure.

It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge.

Who says I am not under the special protection of God?

I am still confused how religion has even survived into this modern world. Sure we can't prove there isn't a God, but can anyone prove there is one either? Please, name something thet religion has disproved in science. I can think of many things science has disproved about religion (i.e. we orbit the Sun). Religion has become mankind's excuse to persecute and betray humankind. Religion is still persecuting everything from homosexuality to Aeithism, there is NO doubt about it. Religion has time in and time out stripped the rights away from anyone willing to think for one's self. It is merely a fierce dictator ship with a death grip on this world. We fight against people who are persecuting other religions or carry out violence in the name of it (i.e. the Middle East), but we continue to practice it ourselves. IF anything is done it has always been a long struggle, and fought against 'til the very end. Reason needs to take over. No person should be persecuted, but simple reason should be the basis of mankind's thinking. Nothing else.

...and I would be uncomfortable with someone leading this nation that proclaimed that s/he believed that there is no God.

If anything I would think you should be more uncomfortable in somebody who does believe in a God. Mankind's oldest cult in reality.

Love the quotes

In addition to what I posted before:

 List of autracities commited in the name of religion

1. The Crusades.
   
2. The Inquisition.
   
3. Witch trials in Europe and America.
   
4. The Divine right of Kings (valid until killed by another Divinely-appointed King).
   
5. Missionaries destroying/converting smaller, "heathen" religions and cultures.
   
6. Missionaries such as Mother Teresa.
   
7. The demonization of other religions, e.g. Christianity demonizing Pagans ("They're devil-worshippers!"), the Romans demonizing Christians ("They're atheists and cannibals!").
   
8. Persecution of Heretics - e.g. Galileo for daring to suggest that the Earth orbits the Sun.
   
9. Children dying because their parents refused them medical treatment on religious grounds; relying instead on faith-healers and prayer.
   
10. Slavery, supposedly supported by scripture ("Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, just as you would obey Christ.", St.Paul, Ephesians 6:5)
    
11. Holy wars - followers of different faiths (or even the same faith) killing each other in the name of their (benevolent, loving and merciful) gods.
    
12. The destruction of great works of art considered to be pornographic/blasphemous, and the persecution of the artists.
    
13. Censorship (often destructive) of speech, art, books, music, films, poetry, songs and, if possible, thought.
    
14. Persecution/punishment of blasphemers (Salman Rushdie still has a death sentence on him), and blasphemy laws in general.
    
15. The requirement of theism in order to stand for public office or to testify in court.
    
16. Serial killers believing they are doing the work of Satan (or sometimes Jesus).
    
17. Often-fatal exorcisms by priests believing they are destroying the work of Satan.
    
18. People suffering dreadful injury or death in the belief that their faith has made them invulnerable (e.g. people climbing into lion enclosures at zoos, with a Bible as protection).
    
19. Whole societies divided by minor differences in belief or doctrine, often resulting in violence.
    
20. Mass suicides of cult-members following a charismatic leader who believes the world is about to End (most recently, the Heaven's Gate and Solar Temple cults - there will be more as we approach the year 2000).
    
21. The attempted genocide of followers of a particular faith (e.g. the Jewish Holocaust, "ethnic cleansing" in former Yugoslavia).
    
22. Blood sacrifices to appease the Gods, or to ensure a good harvest. (The Aztecs made daily human sacrifices to ensure that the Sun would rise. Or did they? )
    
23. The practice of "female circumcision" (more accurately termed genital mutilation).
    
24. The discouragement of rational, critical thought (resulting in young-earth creationists, for example).
    
25. Uncontrolled population growth caused (or at least helped) by churches prohibiting birth-control and abortion. (You can also add : unwanted pregnancies, ill-fated forced marriages, and pregnant teenagers condemned to a life in mental institutions to avoid embarrassing their families.)
    
26. The spread of sexually transmitted diseases (e.g. AIDS) due to churches prohibiting the use of condoms.
    
27. Believers whipping, impaling, poisoning or crucifying themselves during religious festivals as a demonstration of their faith and piety.
    
28. Suicide bombers taught to believe that martyrs go straight to Paradise.
    
29. The indoctrination of children into the religion of their parents, giving them an arbitrary, life-long belief that is almost entirely dependent on their place of birth.
    
30. Women treated as second-class citizens or even slaves (article : Islam's Shame).
    
31. Pentecostal snake-handlers (Augusta Chronicle news article)
    
32. Persecution of homosexuals (Genocide of gay and lesbian youth)
    
33. Abuse of power, authority and trust by religious leaders (for financial gain or sexual abuse of followers and even children).
    
34. Minor religions ("cults") stockpiling weapons to defend themselves from the Armies Of Satan (i.e. the police and the government).
    

Source:http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/harm.html

In this list something REALL stood out to me that I didn't even know before. It was number 10.

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, just as you would obey Christ.", St.Paul, Ephesians 6:5

The bible openly says slavery is okay. My original view was that it was the people that were truly corrupt, but this to me proves otherwise. The bible supports the awful practice of slavery.

It merely plays upon the human mind and inspires you into following with a promise of a better life if you essentially surender your right to think for yourself. And what if you don't believe? Well it is to hell with you mister! Live your days burning and suffering. Essentially making human kind regress.

Another example of wrong in religion:

In Alma 3:6-7, it is recorded that the skins of the Lamanites were dark, "according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men. And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women".

Mormon 9:6. "O then ye unbelieving, turn ye unto the Lord; cry mightily unto the Father in the name of Jesus, that perhaps ye may be found spotless, pure, fair, and white, having been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb, at that great and last day."

Source:http://www.ldslearning.org/book-of-mormo...k-skin.htm

In The Book of Mormom it states it was a CURSE to have dark skin. They had done wrong and were therefore given dark skin.

We can also look at Islam who takes the rights away from women, and nonbelievers. You can be killed for commiting sins.

The issue is in court cases too. The Scopes Trial is a great example. The law specificly said you had to teach how the Church believed mankind came to be. Darwin's Theory of Evolution was forbidden.

Aetheists are only part of it. Already we are being denied out freedom of religion by having to have the youth say "under God" in the "Pledge of Allegiance". This "democratic society is not truly democratic until ALL religion is kept out of government. Because as long as religion is within the government they will always try to impose their beliefs among others. Their leaders tell them to and so they will. I will never understand how such an "educated" society still practices these primitive social beliefs.

I am still confused how religion has even survived into this modern world. Sure we can't prove there isn't a God, but can anyone prove there is one either?

That's not a valid argument, as it works both ways.

Please, name something thet religion has disproved in science. I can think of many things science has disproved about religion (i.e. we orbit the Sun).

Religion doesn't exist to disprove science and science doesn't exist to disprove religion. Religious beliefs can be the answer to "why", as science is the answer to "how." Many themes described in various religious texts have been shown to be inaccurate such as the sun revolving around the Earth. However, you'd be naïve to think that every book pertaining to various faiths has gone uneditted since the original editions. I believe stories were added as time went on in order to continue relevance in then-modern societies. Hell, if I remember correctly, the Tanakh (a book of Jewish belief) described the theory of multiple dimensions way before any scientist had even pondered upon such a thought. Who's to say faith and science can't coexist?

Religion has become mankind's excuse to persecute and betray humankind. Religion is still persecuting everything from homosexuality to Aeithism, there is NO doubt about it. Religion has time in and time out stripped the rights away from anyone willing to think for one's self. It is merely a fierce dictator ship with a death grip on this world. We fight against people who are perecuting other religions or carry out violence in the name of it (i.e. the Middle East), but we continue to practice it ourselves. IF anything is done it has always been a long struggle, and fought against 'til the very end. Reason needs to take over. No person should be persecuted, but simple reason should be the basis of mankind's thinking. Nothing else.

This is a gross overgeneralization, as many religions have not ever been involved in such activities. Ever hear of the Deists' holy war? Me neither.

Granted, hate stemming from personal belief is a very real and dangerous thing. Far too many people have struck out against another in the name of their god. However, to blame only their faith isn't right, as they themselves are the ones that have interpretted and acted in accordance to what they've deciphered. Religious fanaticism is the cause.

That's not a valid argument, as it works both ways.

It wasn't an argument as much as it was me acknowledging neither side can really prove anyting. Just state their best evidence. Although I don't believe in a god and may state things that tell me he isn't there I am more focused in the human aspect of religion than the supernatural.

Religion doesn't exist to disprove science and science doesn't exist to disprove religion. Religious beliefs can be the answer to "why", as science is the answer to "how." Many themes described in various religious texts have been shown to be inaccurate such as the sun revolving around the Earth. However, you'd be naïve to think that every book pertaining to various faiths has gone uneditted since the original editions. I believe stories were added as time went on in order to continue relevance in then-modern societies. Hell, if I remember correctly, the Tanakh (a book of Jewish belief) described the theory of multiple dimensions way before any scientist had even pondered upon such a thought. Who's to say faith and science can't coexist?

Religion has oppressed science a lot. Granted I am talking mostly about Western religion being that I haven't studyed too hard on Eastern religions. Some people may be in correct in practicing their religion, but human kind hasn't. Humans (obviously not including every single human that has ever walked the planet) justify crimes against humanity with their religion. This isn't only limited to the Westeren religions either for example the Japanese's belief that the emporer was a god is what fueled their fanatical views in WWII. As well as Hinduism's caste system causes many lower level people to suffer. As for "why" and "how". Does there even have to be a reason why we live? Why we feel? Why we believe these things? Why we hate? etc. Could it not be a freak accident that our planet devoloped the way it did? Do humans really have to be so glorious? Can't we just accept we are a freak accident? Merely explain how we became to be in a way that has real evidence supporting it. Proving is not possible because for now we cannot see how we really formed, but we can put together sufficient believeable evidence of why we are the way we are.

This is a gross overgeneralization, as many religions have not ever been involved in such activities. Ever hear of the Deists' holy war? Me neither.

Granted, hate stemming from personal belief is a very real and dangerous thing. Far too many people have struck out against another in the name of their god. However, to blame only their faith isn't right, as they themselves are the ones that have interpretted and acted in accordance to what they've deciphered. Religious fanaticism is the cause.

Many haven't, but many have. I don't exactly blame the individual because they were raised with this. Their mind was usually corrupted at an early age by the religion. In that case I blame the religion, and its leaders. If however that person was an arguably stable person before then I wouldn't blame the overall religion. Have you heard of a war fought fully over science? Religion completely out of it? I haven't. If you try to bring up things such as bombs, and other weapons they were just devoloped to help win the war. The conflicts stemmed from different subjects, not science.


Also note that I really have not heard of a war that stemmed from science. If you can show me an example I will actually appreciate the chance to learn something new. Please, don't call me an idiot or anything of the sort just because I can't over learning any wars started from scientific beliefs. Conflicts have arisen, but no actual wars I believe.

Religion has oppressed science a lot. Granted I am talking mostly about Western religion being that I haven't studyed too hard on Eastern religions. Some people may be in correct in practicing their religion, but human kind hasn't. Humans (obviously not including every single human that has ever walked the planet) justify crimes against humanity with their religion. This isn't only limited to the Westeren religions either for example the Japanese's belief that the emporer was a god is what fueled their fanatical views in WWII. As well as Hinduism's catse system causes many lower level people to suffer. As for "why" and "how". Does there even have to be a reason why we live? Why we feel? Why we believe these things? Why we hate? etc. Could it not be a freak accident that our planet devoloped the way it did? Do humans really have to be so glorious? Can't we just accept we are a freak accident? Merely explain how we became to be in a way that has real evidence supporting it. Proving is not possible because for now we cannot see how we really formed, but we can put together sufficient believeable evidence of why we are the way we are.

Religion has only oppressed science that disproves certain elements in their view. Example is Galileo's theory about Earth orbiting the Sun, Darwin's theory. Galileo's theory had no place to set Heaven and Hell, but the former theory how the solar system was made had lots of place to Heaven and Hell. Darwin's theory says that humans developed from bacteria, not that humans were made in the image of God.

I myself feel somewhat scared to be under a boss/president which is very religious and believe in a religion that concludes that some sort of human is less worth than others. Take Christianity, just because that is the most common religion. If you don't believe in Christianity, then take a look in the ten commandments: "Do not have any other gods before me.". Christianity has also killed several women that have been wise, thus assumed to be witches. Witches = bad thing, they shall be killed because they are dangerous. From what Christianity says. Or that they believe that some people speak through a human. (wat, dunno if this is srs tho)

All other major religions, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism (somewhat) and so forth states that other humans are less worth than others.

Religion has become mankind's excuse to persecute and betray humankind. Religion is still persecuting everything from homosexuality to Aeithism, there is NO doubt about it. Religion has time in and time out stripped the rights away from anyone willing to think for one's self. It is merely a fierce dictator ship with a death grip on this world. We fight against people who are persecuting other religions or carry out violence in the name of it (i.e. the Middle East), but we continue to practice it ourselves. IF anything is done it has always been a long struggle, and fought against 'til the very end. Reason needs to take over. No person should be persecuted, but simple reason should be the basis of mankind's thinking. Nothing else.

The Soviet Union was an extremely athiest government that suppressed religion and was responsible for the deaths of millions of people WITHIN the Soviet Union. Funny how athiests who always blame religion for war/persecution/ect conveniently ALWAYS forget about the very athiest Soviet Union. It's absolutely sickening.

But hey, it's ok if athiests persecute religion, right? It must be religion's fault anyway, right?

The Soviet Union was an extremely athiest government that suppressed religion and was responsible for the deaths of millions of people WITHIN the Soviet Union. Funny how athiests who always blame religion for war/persecution/ect conveniently ALWAYS forget about the very athiest Soviet Union. It's absolutely sickening.

But hey, it's ok if athiests persecute religion, right? It must be religion's fault anyway, right?

I can acknowledge Aetheists aren't perfect. (In this case very, very far from perfect.)


They were merely Aethiestic in order to secure their power. The suppressed EVERYTHING that went against them. Aetheists included if they were going against what they said was right. Why didn't you bring up Hitler either? He didn't just kill Jews, but he brought down many religions. Jews were obviously the majority of it though.

So I have to say there are exceptions to things like this, but why not look at it as a whole? There were a lot more conflicts started OVER religion then AGAINST it.

Atheism is rather dumb, to me at least. I don't understand how people are able to say there's nothing more to reality after death.
But that's just a personal opinion.

Atheism is rather dumb, to me at least. I don't understand how people are able to say there's nothing more to reality after death.
But that's just a personal opinion.

Sure they is something after death, we just won't "experience" since out brains will no longer be functioning. I find it dumb that people have to have something after their life in order for this life to be meaningful. Also most religions afterlives are pretty nice if you did good on this world. With that said why is everyone so afraid of dying?

I think people need to just accept we were a freak accident from unique molecular bonds. We didn't need a higher power to create us, and we don't need to overglorify ourselves. I want to believe in logic not just something someone said was true.

And that is just my personal opinion.

Matt, are you Atheist?